Ron Paul is a racist.

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
Most conservatives are racists, regardless if they admit it or not, so why should ron paul be any different?

Really? And how does someone go about disproving such a blatant lie? If I say I have black friends, you will say I am pandering. If I say I have
dated black women, you will say so did the slave owners. If I tell you I love all black people, I am lying. I suppose, we are all a little bit
racist. The worst racists are the ones that pretend they don't see color, or don't recognize any differences. There are differences. Good, bad,
and otherwise. But, in my opinion, to be a "racist," you have to hate. And if you are implying all conservatives "hate" everyone else, then you
are extremely WRONG!

He is also for privitisation of most government sectors as are the republicans.

No, privatization means he still wants the government handling certain things, albeit through a contracted proxy. This is absolutely NOT his stance.
He wants the government completely out of certain areas. No privatization, no nothing. Just completely out of the nanny business.

Small government---check!, A big point of contention though in relation to mainstream republicans is: stay out of foreign affairs unless
absolutely necessary. And lets audit the fed and replace it with competing private currencies.

Small govt, yes. Small competing currencies? Never heard any such thing out of his mouth. We have a US Treasury, and we used to have a Gold
Standard. It may need tweaked a little bit so instead of just "gold" we may need a precious metals/commodities standard, but it would still be a
singular US Currency.

Honestly I think he is controlled opposition for the right, as being left in america is borderline criminal.

Really, because the way I see it, the left has brought us such doozies as misinterpreting the separation of church and state to mean NOBODY has any
rights to express their religion. They have brought us controversies such as endorsing abortion, but protesting death penalties. They have brought
us seat belt laws, helmet laws, red light cameras, and more. NOW, on the other side, the Right has brought is idiocracy like the Patriot Act, and gay
marriage bans, worldwide warfare, and corporatism. Neither side is without fault and blame, but you cannot say it is criminal to be left.

What do you suppose is more racist. Recognizing people for their differences and endorsing everyone's right to make their own way, or implying that
minorities can't make it on their own and are somehow inferior and require government's help to succeed?

In my opinion, at this time in America, the Extreme Right, and the Extreme Left have the most in common. We all realize the Middle is eroding away
our rights, our expertise, our standards of living, our international good will, our economy, our education, and everything this country stands for.
Both extreme views are willing to be active, and participate, and create change. Both are doing it for the good of the country. I empathize with
both OWS and the Tea Party. I believe this is an historic time, and the entire population will be mobilized for the elections in 2012, and we will be
voting for the survival of our nation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness (originally read: property).

I'm willing to take it all the way - as long as you are not limiting anyone else's liberty, using force against anyone else, or tampering with
anyone else's property, then what you choose to do with your own property is your own business - and your business is your property.

Additionally, as has been noted previously, there was already a sea change in effect regarding civil rights. Anyone stupid enough to actually
discriminate racially at their business in this age (let alone this economic climate) would basically be committing business suicide. Regardless,
discrimination IS still allowed, as long as it's not overtly for this reason - I'm sure you've seen the signs that say "We reserve the right to
refuse service to anyone" and the like.

Just my thoughts, since everyone wants to get wrapped up on a non-issue that Paul has never campaigned on and is by no means at ANY risk of being
reversed, even if parts of it should be. It's used for nothing more productive than scoring political points.

Paul is the dream that refuses to die. His followers could watch him eat a dead baby on national tv and still would scream for him until they were
blue in the face all the while calling you a sheep for not liking him.

It'd be ironic if it wasn't so in line with human nature. Tribalism isn't just limited to races.

Either way, he could never overturn the act as there would still be a congress to block him and I'm certain no Democrat would go for it.

Originally posted by antonia
His followers could watch him eat a dead baby on national tv and still would scream for him until they were blue in the face all the while calling you
a sheep for not liking him.

Wow, you really believe that?
I hope you are just way over exaggerating because I think the Paul supporters really do care about the country and it's citizens, including babies.

Originally posted by antonia
His followers could watch him eat a dead baby on national tv and still would scream for him until they were blue in the face all the while calling you
a sheep for not liking him.

Wow, you really believe that?
I hope you are just way over exaggerating because I think the Paul supporters really do care about the country and it's citizens, including babies.

You really have to ask? It's an observation on the fervent nature of Ron Paul's supporters.

Originally posted by antonia
Paul is the dream that refuses to die. His followers could watch him eat a dead baby on national tv and still would scream for him until they were
blue in the face all the while calling you a sheep for not liking him.
.

The same could be said about any politician.

Have you forgotten all of the Obama and Palin sycophants from the last election?

I'd give a thousands stars to that if I could. Thanks getreadyalready.

Some people just absolutely refuse to see things for what they really are. Labeling someone or a group of people who have principles that others
choose not to understand, automatically makes them think they have the right to cry "racist", even without looking into the facts. It's the term that
is thrown around all over the place, and it happens almost constantly now in this new society we live in. I applaud your efforts to show reality to
those who choose to be blind to it, however.

I honestly think that at least half of these people trying to argue against Paul calling him racist are not saying it because they actually
believe it, but because they are still stuck in the 2 party system, and will say whatever it takes to keep their candidate in office. Politics have
always had some level of shadyness, but these last ten years it's become way over the top. I remember in 08' I didn't want to vote at all, I disliked
both candidates and at one point I was actually accused of being racist for not voting Obama. While one can blatantly say they think all republicans
are racist, I could easily flip that and say all who voted Obama in because he's black are the most vile racists on the planet. Now, while I do
think that kind of racism exists, I don't believe all democrats are racist because I know that not to be true.

Comments made like the one you responded to are only providing more hopelessness to this election process than already exists. I fear for the well
being of our nation, I really do.

Originally posted by getreadyalready
What do you suppose is more racist. Recognizing people for their differences and endorsing everyone's right to make their own way, or implying that
minorities can't make it on their own and are somehow inferior and require government's help to succeed?

Regarding Ron Paul's or anybody elses personal racism, this is not the greatest issue or concern for me. The issue for me is Ron Paul's consistent
opposition to rulings and laws that serve to protect private the social lives of Americans from government (STATE and Federal) interference. His
opposition to SCOTUS overturning the states ability to enforce racial segregation, interracial marriage bans and sodomy laws on their citizens, I mean
for goodness sakes, he appears to have no issue with an envasive state government, and he has never from my research changed his positions in
the past.

I don't like the idea of government having the power to get so far involved in personal lives, whether it be state or federal, though
apparently Ron Paul begs to differ. Ron Paul is for states rights first and foremost, not for individual liberties. It's predictable that his loyal
supporters would look past this and continiously point to his foreign policie and fiscal policies to discount his other positions that trample on
individual liberties. To me these positions are VERY relevant, and it takes an element of bigotry and racism to legitimize state governments enforcing
these laws on Americans.

Your style of writing and poor grammar are more than enough to disqualify your support of the most valid candidate in the upcoming election...in other
words, Ron Paul does not want your support...When he wins, you will still be free to print your drivel...anyone who else who wins, you will be allowed
to print your drivel, as it suits the purpose...when it ceases, you will be silenced...

he appears to have no issue with an envasive state government, and he has never from my research changed his positions in the past.

That is a good point, and I have pondered it before also. His stances are steadfast in the realm of Federal Govt, but sometimes that can be taken as
a copout on the real issues. While I entirely agree with his stance that the SCOTUS should not be legislating from the bench, and Justices should not
be ruling based on the opinions of past justices, instead, they should be ruling based on the Constitution. It is pretty clear what the Federal
Government should and should not be doing, but where does that leave the individual?

Here is my take on it. He is serving in a capacity as a Representative in the US Congress. His role is only to define the Federal Government's
role. It isn't in his capacity at this time, or at the time he becomes president, to legislate on behalf of the states.

So, I can still get behind all of his positions, but I would expect each state to have people similar to Ron Paul that will stand steadfast for their
State's Constitution, and the wishes of the residents of that state. It might mean that some states will have laws we don't like or agree with, but
that is their right.

I don't think referring to the US Constitution is a cop out on the issues. First and Foremost, we must limit the size and scope of the Federal
Government, and then we can work down to a more and more local level from there.

Our Founding Fathers had the model correct, but we have strayed so far from that model that it is almost unrecognizable. We have to get centered, and
back to basics, and then reassess and see how we can improve further.

I'm willing to take it all the way - as long as you are not limiting anyone else's liberty, using force against anyone else, or tampering with
anyone else's property, then what you choose to do with your own property is your own business - and your business is your property.

And what about the people who don't own property? Theoretically, they have fewer rights because they don't own property. Basically, those with
more wealth will technically have more rights than others...and more power to discriminate.

Where are the homeless to go? Sleep on the roads since it's public property?

For instance, in Paul's eutopia...there would be no federal minimum wage. In other words, it would be left to states who would then have to
compete...driving down their own minimum wage laws to keep and maintain businesses. It's the same thing that is happening now with states competing
for jobs with their tax rates.

It will only continue to destroy our standard of living. Paul's world is a pipe dream...and yes....if an actual racist looked at his stances...they
would support him...just like David Duke has done in the past.

Remember now....the argument I've always read about the civil war was that it wasn't really about slavery...it was about STATE'S RIGHTS......which
is why so many in the south...and the north (I see it all the time in Michigan) proudly drive around with the confederate flag on their vehicle. I
doubt they are all Dukes of Hazard fans.....

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
Most conservatives are racists, regardless if they admit it or not, so why should ron paul be any different?

Really? And how does someone go about disproving such a blatant lie? If I say I have black friends, you will say I am pandering. If I say I have
dated black women, you will say so did the slave owners. If I tell you I love all black people, I am lying. I suppose, we are all a little bit
racist. The worst racists are the ones that pretend they don't see color, or don't recognize any differences. There are differences. Good, bad,
and otherwise. But, in my opinion, to be a "racist," you have to hate. And if you are implying all conservatives "hate" everyone else, then you
are extremely WRONG!

I should have said most of the haters are conservative rather than liberals. Would that have changed anything?

In retrospect my sentence was poorley constructed and misleading. I regret that mistake!

He is also for privitisation of most government sectors as are the republicans.

No, privatization means he still wants the government handling certain things, albeit through a contracted proxy. This is absolutely NOT his stance.
He wants the government completely out of certain areas. No privatization, no nothing. Just completely out of the nanny business.

Funny, I thought i heard him say he supported privitisation of some government services or maybe some supporter of his got it wrong. In any case what
exactly is "the nanny business"? Do you mean no social welfare systems like other nations have: social security, medicare and medicaid. People pay
money into it and should collect unimpeded. The reason the government comes up short is because they divert funds from the trust fund into other
areas.

Small government---check!, A big point of contention though in relation to mainstream republicans is: stay out of foreign affairs
unless absolutely necessary. And lets audit the fed and replace it with competing private currencies.

Small govt, yes. Small competing currencies? Never heard any such thing out of his mouth. We have a US Treasury, and we used to have a Gold
Standard. It may need tweaked a little bit so instead of just "gold" we may need a precious metals/commodities standard, but it would still be a
singular US Currency.

Is there enough gold/silver to accomodate the vast money supply? I don't think there is and why would we need money to be backed by gold/silver
anyway? If we agree money has a certain value(like monopoly money does) then it should not fluctuate according to the supply factor of money. So one
$50 bill in the market would be worth just as much as 90 $50 bills. The value of currency should not fluctuate rather the value of the good and
services should based on their availability/demand/quality.

He did mention competing currencies somewhere and I think it was a video of him in congress questioning the FED and ben bernanke during quantitive
easing.

Honestly I think he is controlled opposition for the right, as being left in america is borderline criminal.

Really, because the way I see it, the left has brought us such doozies as misinterpreting the separation of church and state to mean NOBODY has any
rights to express their religion. They have brought us controversies such as endorsing abortion, but protesting death penalties. They have brought
us seat belt laws, helmet laws, red light cameras, and more. NOW, on the other side, the Right has brought is idiocracy like the Patriot Act, and gay
marriage bans, worldwide warfare, and corporatism. Neither side is without fault and blame, but you cannot say it is criminal to be left.

The way I see it is seperation of church from state implies the two operate seperately and do not interfere with each other in any official capacity.
You can belong to any church you want but schools are discouraged from teaching religion. As for abortion I support abortion under certain
conditions. Death penalty for multiple planned murders.

Not all liberals agree with each other and progressives are more left than liberals.

Neither side is without fault and blame, but you cannot say it is criminal to be left.

I was speaking metaphorically in that the extreme left is frowned upon. If you don't support capitalism in america then you must be some kind of
trailer park trash loser. Look how much heat OWS is taking from the corporately owned media and even here on ATS!

In my opinion, at this time in America, the Extreme Right, and the Extreme Left have the most in common. We all realize the Middle is eroding away
our rights, our expertise, our standards of living, our international good will, our economy, our education, and everything this country stands for.
Both extreme views are willing to be active, and participate, and create change. Both are doing it for the good of the country. I empathize with
both OWS and the Tea Party. I believe this is an historic time, and the entire population will be mobilized for the elections in 2012, and we will be
voting for the survival of our nation.

Well libertarianism is very right wing afaik and communism is the extreme left. I support market socialism aka mild capitalism. Nothing really
extreme about that. Western europeans and canadians had such system in place 20-30 years ago, but they privitised government operations and are now
full blown capitalists.

If we keep the FED then we need to collect more taxes from the wealthy and less from the middle class. Jobs have been going overseas at an alarming
rate due to lack of sufficient tariffs thus encouraging globalisation to accelerate. So we give corporate welfare with the hope of more jobs, yet the
companies are pocketing the money and investing it elsewhere.

The best solution would be to trash the FED and go back to the greenbacks that Abraham Lincoln and JFK proposed but failed to permanently install.
Both got killed under suspicious ways which till today remains a mystery.

The Above Top Secret Web site is a wholly owned social content community of The Above Network, LLC.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.